Talk:Massimo Boninsegni

COI maintenance template 22-AUG-2019

The COI maintenance template was applied to the article. The COI editor has added several of their research papers to the article. The reader ought to be informed that this information was placed there by an individual whose role as a Wikipedia editor may be in conflict with their role as proponent of the positions argued for in said papers. The adding of information to articles should always be viewed through the lense of role-conflict potentiality when the editor who adds the information does so arbitrarily and without the possibility for review by a neutral editor. Regards,  Spintendo  23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I don't see the need for the coi template at the moment. The content is all verifiable (after your changes) and there's nothing controversial or promotional. If you think there is content that doesn't belong then please highlight which parts and I can review. SmartSE (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does an encyclopedia require a conflict of interest policy?'

1. Users expect a quick summary article containing answers to their questions. The volunteers building Wikipedia owe the users balanced coverage of the subject, giving due weight to pros, cons, as well a summary of any controversy. Since this is a tertiary source, we also include citations to reliable sources so the user may verify information and learn details about the sources.

2. Since this is an Internet work, there is no way to Verify the identity of any contributor; that is why the COI tag does not take a stand on the identity of the contributor.

3.I am sure your article is written in good faith. The tag is not placed as a punishment. It is a point of information for the user and as a notice to volunteers at Wikipedia that the article has a COI and needs review. Any editor here who may be interested in the subject may decide to check the citations, collect further citations, rewrite and expand the article, and include current and additional content. (Any editor at wikipedia may edit any article—the license under which you contributed states that your contributions do not belong to you. Anyone may use your contributions without limit—the sole restriction being that credit must be given to you.)

4. Though I began to study undergraduate physics in 1962, I ended up in journalism. The journalism organization for which I worked took conflict of interest very seriously, in a Caesar's wife context. I believe that is the only way to protect Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. We wish to treat our contributors fairly. I certainly believe Wikipedia should have an article on Massimo Boninsegni. I also believe we need additional contributions from you as articles in your fields of interest and expertise. And not just in physics.

5. I see that as I have been typing that you have drastically cut the article. I don't believe that is the necessary outcome, and feel sure the article will be expanded. The question has never about the content but rather who chose the content and sources. It has never been about your good faith, but rather the methods Wikipedia has developed to allow tens of thousands of regular editors—who rarely meet face-to-face—to collaborate.

6. I believe a good step to get a better article into Wikipedia would be for you to paste your next to last version here on this talk past and ask for help avoiding the COI tag. In addition you could make suggestions on this talk pages for future changes. We more are less required to work in this way. I apologize for the sometimes opaque nature of our policies. You may always seek help by posting the string {{help me}} on this talk page.

Thank you for your contribution. I hope my message has been of some help. —Neonorange (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Additional comment: COI is shown in many ways. Most academics who write their autobiography here they say too much; but others say too little. All tend to emphasise the wrong things. They typically include information they would like the reader to know, such as their hobbies or the accomplishments of their children ; but that does no match what he reader comes here to know, which is who they are professionally and how their work fits into the progress of knowledge. They source it only to their own CV and their papers, even when there might be better or at least additional sources. They either list all the papers, or none of hem, rather than the proper amount, which is the few most cited.

I think the COI tag belongs on every article with a COI, even if the article is perfect. It's information that the user would think relevant. In the case where the person does write a perfect autobio, it explains that we are judging the article to be stisfactory despite the COI. ( In this particular case it is indeed a little redundant, because the sequence of changes, the edit summaries, and the discussions here make the COI obvious. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)